This video is a lecture given by a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are. Everyone else should watch it. It is about 18 minutes long and worth it. I did not post this because it talks about Texas, but it didn't hurt, either.
What if Climate Change is Real?
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Mass Extinction In Progress
Next time someone tells you climate change is good for us (yes, it's hard to believe, but there are people that really do say that), point them to one of the reports on a study showing climate change, if it continues the way it is, will lead to an extinction of one-sixth of all species on the planet. This study is not by itself. It is in agreement with previous studies on the subject.
That is an impressive amount of analysis.
He found 2.8% of species are currently at risk of going extinct due to the amount of climate change that has already occurred. If the global temperature eventually holds steady at a 2 C increase, the percentage increases to 5.2%. If the temperature increases to the 4.3 degree increase that is being projected, the percentage increases to about 18% of all species - one in six.
So, please explain to me how wiping out one species in six will be good for us.
“All the studies are in pretty good agreement: The more warming we have, the more species we’ll lose,” says Dov Sax, a conservation biologist at Brown University who was not involved in the work. “This is really important to know, from a policy viewpoint.”Mark Urban, an ecologist at the University of Connecticut, Storrs did a very impressive analysis of previous studies to reach his results. There have been a number of studies done and have reached a wide-range of conclusions. Urban compared the studies to find a consensus from the data. He used only the results of studies that had assessed extinction risks for more than one species, 131 studies in total. Then he worked the details, to compare apples to apples, and examined factors such as the regions in which the studies had examined, the types of species involved in the studies, if those species were limited to one small region or were widely dispersed, and whether the species were free to move as climate changed or were blocked by barriers such as mountain ranges, deforestation, or urban development. Finally, he weighted the results of the studies to give more statistical importance to those that assessed extinction risks for larger numbers of species.
That is an impressive amount of analysis.
He found 2.8% of species are currently at risk of going extinct due to the amount of climate change that has already occurred. If the global temperature eventually holds steady at a 2 C increase, the percentage increases to 5.2%. If the temperature increases to the 4.3 degree increase that is being projected, the percentage increases to about 18% of all species - one in six.
So, please explain to me how wiping out one species in six will be good for us.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Disappearing Fog Another Factor in California
As we all know, California is having a epic drought while also experiencing historically high temperatures. The high temperatures are compounding the drought by increasing the rate of evaporation. One of the factors involved that is often overlooked is the rate of fog. Fog works to cool the surface by providing shade until it is burned off. Less fog means the sunlight reaches the ground more, resulting in more heating. As it turns out, the amount of fog in California is decreasing.
It has already been noted how California's famous Tule fog is becoming increasingly rare. This is the thick, winter fog that can blanket the central region so thickly it actually waters the plants. But, fog in general is decreasing across the state. Over the course of the 20th century, coastal summertime fog worldwide was reported to decrease by 33%. California, in particular, has experienced a century-long decline in coastal fog.
What is the long-term outlook? That is not clear (foggy? Sorry). Warm ocean surface temperatures lead to a decrease in fog. But it is not certain the coastal waters will get warmer, even when the ocean overall is getting warmer, due to upwelling. It is possible the medium-term amount of fog will stay constant, or decrease slightly. But, the long-term outlook has to be bleak, even with upwelling. The depths are getting warmer and eventually the upwelling water will be too warm to lead to fog.
So, as the crops suffer the loss of the cooling fog (the grapes for one love fog), the rest of the state will also suffer due to the reduction in the shading, leading to higher surface temperatures, leading to greater evaporation, leading to even higher temperatures.
But, at least there will be fewer fog delays at the airports.
It has already been noted how California's famous Tule fog is becoming increasingly rare. This is the thick, winter fog that can blanket the central region so thickly it actually waters the plants. But, fog in general is decreasing across the state. Over the course of the 20th century, coastal summertime fog worldwide was reported to decrease by 33%. California, in particular, has experienced a century-long decline in coastal fog.
What is the long-term outlook? That is not clear (foggy? Sorry). Warm ocean surface temperatures lead to a decrease in fog. But it is not certain the coastal waters will get warmer, even when the ocean overall is getting warmer, due to upwelling. It is possible the medium-term amount of fog will stay constant, or decrease slightly. But, the long-term outlook has to be bleak, even with upwelling. The depths are getting warmer and eventually the upwelling water will be too warm to lead to fog.
So, as the crops suffer the loss of the cooling fog (the grapes for one love fog), the rest of the state will also suffer due to the reduction in the shading, leading to higher surface temperatures, leading to greater evaporation, leading to even higher temperatures.
But, at least there will be fewer fog delays at the airports.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Groundhog Day
Today, Groundhog Day is just another reason to have a party. No complaints about that from me, I was at one last night and we had a pretty good time. But, in antiquity, the equivalent of our modern-day ritual was serious business.
Before there were supermarkets with food supplies, people had to make careful plans on how to get through the winter. A mistake could prove fatal and often did. It was vitally important to know about the change of seasons.
This is how astronomy got started because the seasons are a result of the planet's tilt on its axis and rotation around the Sun. They didn't know about those things in ancient times, but they knew the stars, Sun and Moon changed in the sky on a regular basis. By observing over a period of time, virtually every ancient culture throughout the world figured out the two solstices and two equinoxes and how the seasons changed relative to those four days. We find ancient observatories everywhere devoted to identifying these days. In addition, the four days between, the cross-quarter days, also became important. People with knowledge of these eight days were powerful and respected. They were the ones who told everyone when to plant, when to harvest, when to do just about everything according to the seasons. This is probably how ancient priesthoods got started.
The winter and summer solstices (about December 21 and June 21) as well as the vernal and fall equinoxes (about March 21 and September 21) are well known today, with some small variation in the exact day. The cross-quarter days are not as well known, but are still mostly observed under many different names. The best known one is probably Halloween, midway between the fall equinox and the winter solstice. The cross-quarter day between the summer solstice and the fall equinox occurs in the first week of August and was referred to as first harvest. There are still some cultures that observe this day, but not many. In olden times, villagers would tithe a portion of their crop to the village to help everyone get through winter. The cross-quarter day between the spring equinox and the summer solstice occurs at the beginning of May, is known as May Day in modern times and is observed as a celebration of spring and fertility. That leaves the cross-quarter day between the winter solstice and the spring equinox - now known as Groundhog Day.
When we track the winter months we find the coldest days occur around the end of January and the beginning of February - right at the cross-quarter day. As a result, some cultures said spring started on the cross-quarter day (known as Imbolc in Germanic countries). Other cultures said it started on the equinox in March. To resolve this, the cultures in Norther Europe began a system of weather prognostication involving badgers or bears. If the day was cloudy and a shadow was not seen on Imbolc, spring had arrived. Otherwise, spring wouldn't start until the equinox. This, of course, was very serious business for these people. If they ran out of food before spring they were in real trouble. Starvation and famine were not unusual.
When the Germans immigrated to United States, they brought the tradition with them, but began using groundhogs instead of badgers. Now, with modern supply systems in place, it is just another way to have fun.
But, there is something amiss - spring is coming earlier.
As we have seen, there are many ways to define 'spring.' One way is when the dormant plants come back to life. This is particularly convenient because the active/dormant cycle with plants results in an up and down pattern to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This allows us to measure onset of plant active and dormant phases by examining the rise and fall of CO2.
For the period of 1955 - 2002 we see the spring decrease of CO2 level is occurring earlier and this indicates spring plant activity is starting earlier and earlier. The observed rate of change is about -1.2 days per decade earlier for first leaf date, -1.0 days per decade earlier for first bloom, -1.4 days per decade for the last day below 5 degrees C and -1.5 days per decade for last spring freeze date. Consistently, we are seeing spring moving backwards by between 1.0 and 1.5 days earlier ever decade. For the six decades since 1955 this translates into an earlier spring onset of between 6 and 9 days. This is known as 'season creep.'
You might be tempted to say, 'Less winter! Wonderful news.' But, that would be a mistake. For instance, we need winter snowpack to get us through the dry seasons in summer. Less winter means less snowpack and that translates into problems with water supply. Also, the population of many pests are not being knocked down by winter temperatures the way the used to be.
Also, not all plants and animals adjust to the change equally. This is a real problem when two different species depend on each other. If plants depend on certain birds to cross-pollinate them, and the birds depend on the nectar of the flowers, they need to be together when the plants are flowering. If the plants start flowering earlier and the birds don't adjust their migration pattern, the flowers may be dying off by the time the birds get there. This, obviously, would be bad for both plants and birds - and anything that depends on those plants and birds later on.
In fact, we see this is actually happening.
Once again, climate change rears its head to remind us, even when we engaging in a relic ritual, that things are changing. The good news is Groundhog Day is based on astronomy and not climate, so we don't have to ever worry about it getting earlier.
Before there were supermarkets with food supplies, people had to make careful plans on how to get through the winter. A mistake could prove fatal and often did. It was vitally important to know about the change of seasons.
This is how astronomy got started because the seasons are a result of the planet's tilt on its axis and rotation around the Sun. They didn't know about those things in ancient times, but they knew the stars, Sun and Moon changed in the sky on a regular basis. By observing over a period of time, virtually every ancient culture throughout the world figured out the two solstices and two equinoxes and how the seasons changed relative to those four days. We find ancient observatories everywhere devoted to identifying these days. In addition, the four days between, the cross-quarter days, also became important. People with knowledge of these eight days were powerful and respected. They were the ones who told everyone when to plant, when to harvest, when to do just about everything according to the seasons. This is probably how ancient priesthoods got started.
The winter and summer solstices (about December 21 and June 21) as well as the vernal and fall equinoxes (about March 21 and September 21) are well known today, with some small variation in the exact day. The cross-quarter days are not as well known, but are still mostly observed under many different names. The best known one is probably Halloween, midway between the fall equinox and the winter solstice. The cross-quarter day between the summer solstice and the fall equinox occurs in the first week of August and was referred to as first harvest. There are still some cultures that observe this day, but not many. In olden times, villagers would tithe a portion of their crop to the village to help everyone get through winter. The cross-quarter day between the spring equinox and the summer solstice occurs at the beginning of May, is known as May Day in modern times and is observed as a celebration of spring and fertility. That leaves the cross-quarter day between the winter solstice and the spring equinox - now known as Groundhog Day.
When we track the winter months we find the coldest days occur around the end of January and the beginning of February - right at the cross-quarter day. As a result, some cultures said spring started on the cross-quarter day (known as Imbolc in Germanic countries). Other cultures said it started on the equinox in March. To resolve this, the cultures in Norther Europe began a system of weather prognostication involving badgers or bears. If the day was cloudy and a shadow was not seen on Imbolc, spring had arrived. Otherwise, spring wouldn't start until the equinox. This, of course, was very serious business for these people. If they ran out of food before spring they were in real trouble. Starvation and famine were not unusual.
When the Germans immigrated to United States, they brought the tradition with them, but began using groundhogs instead of badgers. Now, with modern supply systems in place, it is just another way to have fun.
But, there is something amiss - spring is coming earlier.
As we have seen, there are many ways to define 'spring.' One way is when the dormant plants come back to life. This is particularly convenient because the active/dormant cycle with plants results in an up and down pattern to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This allows us to measure onset of plant active and dormant phases by examining the rise and fall of CO2.
For the period of 1955 - 2002 we see the spring decrease of CO2 level is occurring earlier and this indicates spring plant activity is starting earlier and earlier. The observed rate of change is about -1.2 days per decade earlier for first leaf date, -1.0 days per decade earlier for first bloom, -1.4 days per decade for the last day below 5 degrees C and -1.5 days per decade for last spring freeze date. Consistently, we are seeing spring moving backwards by between 1.0 and 1.5 days earlier ever decade. For the six decades since 1955 this translates into an earlier spring onset of between 6 and 9 days. This is known as 'season creep.'
You might be tempted to say, 'Less winter! Wonderful news.' But, that would be a mistake. For instance, we need winter snowpack to get us through the dry seasons in summer. Less winter means less snowpack and that translates into problems with water supply. Also, the population of many pests are not being knocked down by winter temperatures the way the used to be.
Also, not all plants and animals adjust to the change equally. This is a real problem when two different species depend on each other. If plants depend on certain birds to cross-pollinate them, and the birds depend on the nectar of the flowers, they need to be together when the plants are flowering. If the plants start flowering earlier and the birds don't adjust their migration pattern, the flowers may be dying off by the time the birds get there. This, obviously, would be bad for both plants and birds - and anything that depends on those plants and birds later on.
In fact, we see this is actually happening.
Once again, climate change rears its head to remind us, even when we engaging in a relic ritual, that things are changing. The good news is Groundhog Day is based on astronomy and not climate, so we don't have to ever worry about it getting earlier.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels II
The following guest submission was sent by the same individual that made the first guest submission on this topic. You can read his first submission, and my comments, here.
In summation, your entire statement is an amazingly
bad failure of logic and science.
From: David Okner
Date:12/30/2014 11:00 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: "dogw.email"
Subject: Re: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
And I’ll respond to your response:
1. The first and biggest point is you didn’t actually
read my submission, which was the book. I suggest you debate Alex Epstein, not
me. I know the book is a lot, but just say you don’t want to read it rather
than invoking logical fallacies.
Take a one look at Alex Epstein's
history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false.
The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy.
Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than
all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.
2. Seriously? This is a logical fallacy and actually a
philosophy background is exactly the best background to have to make sure
everything has been integrated to look at the big picture and thought of
correctly. That doesn’t come from credentials though. Climate experts are just
one area of expertise. If you had any background in philosophy you would know
that science is based on philosophy, reason. Perhaps you wouldn’t use so many
logical fallacies if you were familiar with logic. Smarter than all the world’s
climate scientists? Are you serious? Is that how you think science works? You
just give an intelligence test and then whoever is the smartest then whatever
he says is true? Also, Alex is not a climate scientist, he is showing you the
work of the “smartest climate scientists” you advocate. Alex never said he was
smarter than the world’s climate scientists. What you are saying is that you
are an authority to be obeyed, not an expert to be consulted.
The next clue? He actually brags about working for the
fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for
them. Which he does. For instance:
“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal,
oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”
Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from
the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these
energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not
saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal
poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible
reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no
truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to
that.
'
3. Again, character attacks. Logical fallacies. I could also
attack your character and dream up hidden motives which are irrelevant anyway.
The idea that the only way somebody would support fossil fuels is if they are
paid off is ridiculous. You are looking for hidden motives and not examining
the arguments in the book. And likewise the only reason somebody would oppose
fossil fuels is because they are paid off is equally ridiculous in credit to
your side. That is not a valid argument.
I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word -
ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to
accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is
it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would
better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.
4. The book is full of references, which you would know if
you actually read it. Just say you don’t want to read it instead of making
ridiculous logical fallacies. Debate Alex if you don’t want to read his book.
Show everybody how wrong his thinking is.
Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he
wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He
states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr.
Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is
available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the
only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling.
He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to
change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as
we possibly can.
5. No fossil fuels aren’t the only source. There is nuclear
too, but that doesn’t cause greenhouse gasses, so who cares. If you read the
book you would know that fossil fuels are the cheap, reliable and plentiful
source of energy, which is what matters when it comes to energy. Energy that
doesn’t meet these requirements isn’t very useful. You can get energy from a
lot of things, but who cares.
Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided
affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of
fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment
and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering
standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting
in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it,
do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How
about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.
6. No, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most abundant and
reliable source of energy. Weather disasters happen and thanks to fossil fuels
climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low.
There is no comparison. This is the issue of looking at the big picture.
You can’t ignore the positives and being philosophically minded like Alex and
myself allows one to make sure the big picture is being integrated and being
thought of properly. The first chapter of the book is free. http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com
So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest
polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only
good for us, but we need to do more.
7. What? More character attacks about motives and also
ignoring the big picture? Pollution is at an all time low thanks to modern
filtering technology and also you can’t ignore the positives of fossil fuels.
It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t
provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If
we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our
protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions
would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for
our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our
environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of
your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live
and thrive on Earth?
A point made in the book is that some people have humans as
their standard of value and want to improve our environment. Others have a
totally different standard which is based on minimizing impact on “the
environment”, which means sacrificing humans for a untouched Earth out of a
bias against what humans do as morally wrong. If you want to minimizing impact
on our environment then I think Alex would agree with you that we should stop
using fossil fuels. But I and others in humanity want to maximize our impact on
our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive,
because that is our standard of value. They are his ideas, just like your ideas
are yours. People who like your ideas pay you for your ideas. The question is
who has the right ideas. You don’t examine the ideas, you use logical fallacies
to evade.
Read the book if you care about the issue. There is no other
book that addresses the heart of the subject directly and in the big picture.
The first chapter is free: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com
-David
Response:
Paragraph 1:
One thing you are correct about is that I did not read the
book and I won’t be. That is pretty close to the only thing you are correct
about. Here are some references I consulted on the topic:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein-1417477909
http://industrialprogress.com/about/
http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443
No, I am not going to read the book. I don’t need to. It is
easy for people to tell a book’s claim is false without reading it – such as books
that claim the Moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn’t happen, Elvis Presley
is alive and we are holding aliens captive in Area 51. For the record, yes, I
am grouping this piece of work in with those others and I apologize to those
other authors for including Alex Epstein in with them. Those others are merely
nuts, not overtly harmful.
Paragraph 2:
No, the best background to integrate science is a science
one. You continue to demonstrate your
logic failure by assuming I don’t have a background in philosophy. I do. And,
no, I did not use a logical fallacy by criticizing Mr. Epstein’s credentials.
Would you allow a philosophy major to perform surgery? Why not? After all,
according to you, it is the best background to integrate all of the issues to
obtain the big picture. I mean, don’t you want your surgeon to have the big
picture when he’s standing out your wide-open body? To answer my questions for
you, just to make sure you get them correctly – No, I want a surgeon that knows
the science and has the skills to perform the job. Same thing with science. It
takes decades of hard work to obtain the necessary skills. Mr. Epstein simply
decided one day that reading Aristotle and Kant was enough to be able to prove
all of the world’s scientists wrong. We aren’t even talking about climate
scientists alone because he isn’t limiting himself to the single most
complicated science of all, he’s taking on all of science and all scientists
everywhere. There’s a term for that in philosophy – hubris.
Paragraph 3:
Showing someone’s motives is not only valid, but is
critically important. Why is someone saying the things they are saying? We have
learned, from Mr. Epstein himself, he is saying the things he does because he
is funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is important information to know
and explains why people such as Richard Lindzen and the Oregon Petition Project
work so hard to hide that information.
Notice, did not engage in character attacks on Mr. Epstein.
I only questioned his motives. I did not discuss his sexual orientation, if he
kicks his dog, how he votes or if he undertips the waiter. Those would be
character attacks and those kinds of things would be irrelevant. Keep your
false arguments in line, please.
Paragraph 4:
I would love to debate him in a public forum.
Paragraph 5:
Fossil fuels are not so cheap anymore (Nuclear is not even
close to being cheap, and I’m a nuclear energy supporter.) Also, when you start
including the cost of damage done by fossil fuel they become one of the least
affordable sources of energy of all.
But, wait! We just identified why the fossil fuel industry
is supporting Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein wants us to believe fossil fuel
pollution is GOOD for us. So, when it spoils our water, poisons our air, makes
our children sick and kills us, it is all a GOOD thing for us and we shouldn’t
be saying bad things about those benevolent fossil fuel people. After all, Mr.
Epstein tells us they have made our lives so much better. And, don’t even THINK
about holding them accountable for their actions because changing the
environment is a GOOD thing.
Speaking of using false arguments, that whole line is
nothing more than a crock of horse manure.
Paragraph 6:
This paragraph has so many false statements (short and poisonous) that I don't know where to begin. Let's just address your claim that "thanks to fossil fuels climate related
deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low." Then, tell me how you explain these facts:
- Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
- Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
- The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
- Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
- Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.
Source: World Health Organization
Paragraph 7:
Do you really expect someone to believe that pollution is at an all time low?
More of the same. Yes, I am justified in questioning his
motives, especially when they are so transparent and his claims are so false.
Then, you make a statement that is actually sick:
It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?
So, the scientific evidence is conclusive – fossil fuels are
destroying the environment and the climate. And, you want to justify them by
saying “Can you fault us for loving our environment…..?” I can – and do – fault
you, but it’s for lying.
Just another one of your false arguments. You make the claim
that anyone not wanting to use fossil fuels wants to “sacrifice human” and that
you and others (presumably, those that want to use even more fossil fuels) “want
to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive
way so humanity can thrive.” These are both incredibly false arguments and you
will certainly get people to fall for them because they sound so nice. “Trust
us, we’re the good guys and those environmentalists over there are the bad
guys. They want to turn off your lights! They want all of you to die so the air
and water are clean. How unreasonable of them! Bad environmentalists! Bad! Bad!”
Some of the several false arguments you make with your
statement is that people that oppose the use of fossil fuels want to ‘sacrifice
humans’ when it is actually the opposite. By keeping the air and water clean,
it will improve the lives of humans, not sacrifice them. And, of course, the
biggest false argument you make is that the only way we can have energy is by
burning fossil fuels. This is not only every obviously false, but we are seeing
an increasing number of people turn to alternatives. Solar power alone will
likely rewrite the entire energy industry. That is another example of why the
fossil fuel industry is paying Mr. Epstein – they don’t want people to realize
they can break free of fossil fuels and IMPROVE their standard of living at the
same time.
And, when you speak of ‘maximize our impact on our
environment’ you automatically assume that any change is good. That is the
central false argument Mr. Epstein makes the entire time – the natural state of
the environment is actually bad for us, so changing it (no matter how or why)
has to be good. Go back to your philosophy and logic classes. This is a completely
false argument with nothing to support it.
Really, do you think I would hesitate to debate Mr. Epstein
on these issues in a public forum?
By the way, no one is paying me for my ideas. I would love
to get financial support from some source, but I don’t.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Deniers Win This One - Thanks Greenpeace
You would think a group as devoted to protecting the environment as Green Peace is would know better than to pull off the stunt they did this week in Peru. While the international climate conference was in progress in Lima, Green Peace activists decided to make a splash protest demonstration. But their choice of how to go about doing this was both poorly advised and very curiously against their own philosophy. They chose to trespass on a world heritage site and damaged the amazing Nazca lines by putting a protest message out there.
The Nazca lines are made by removing a very thin layer of what is called 'desert varnish,' a thin crust over a lighter-colored substrate. For some unknown reason, the people living in the area 1500 years ago very carefully removed this varnish to make various drawings. This varnish is so thin that walking on it will damage it. And, that is just what Green Peace did. They trespassed on the site and walked out there to place signs on the surface that were visible from the air. I wonder if future pictures of the site will point out the tracks left behind by these people.
While I laud the thought of making a statement, I condemn the way they did it. For the record, Green Peace itself has been extremely apologetic about this action taken by some of its members and apparently had no foreknowledge of it. Still, the damage is done and not to just the Nazca lines. Now, any time we talk about how climate change is damaging the environment we will have to defend climate science against this criminal act.
The Nazca lines are made by removing a very thin layer of what is called 'desert varnish,' a thin crust over a lighter-colored substrate. For some unknown reason, the people living in the area 1500 years ago very carefully removed this varnish to make various drawings. This varnish is so thin that walking on it will damage it. And, that is just what Green Peace did. They trespassed on the site and walked out there to place signs on the surface that were visible from the air. I wonder if future pictures of the site will point out the tracks left behind by these people.
While I laud the thought of making a statement, I condemn the way they did it. For the record, Green Peace itself has been extremely apologetic about this action taken by some of its members and apparently had no foreknowledge of it. Still, the damage is done and not to just the Nazca lines. Now, any time we talk about how climate change is damaging the environment we will have to defend climate science against this criminal act.
Monday, October 6, 2014
It is Time to Change the Way We Think
We cannot solve the problems that we have created with the same thinking that created them.I am sure Einstein was not talking about climate change when he made this comment, but it certainly applies. I guess that is a demonstration of his true genius - it transcends the ages and issues. We cannot expect to solve the problems we face today with climate change by using the same thinking we used to get in this situation. We MUST change the way we think.
Albert Einstein
I recently received a comment from someone that read my book and told me he gave me a review on Amazon.com. He said something very interesting (and, unfortunately, very accurate):
Although I found his evidence for global warming overwhelming, he failed to fully convince me that the solutions suggested would be very effective in reducing it.
Stephen ChallisAnd, I agree with him. I did not do a convincing job of addressing the issue of what we do about climate change. The simple reason is that I was stuck in using the same thinking we used to get us here. I did not change the way I thought.
There is an interesting article in Scientific American that addresses how to go about this problem. The writer does a pretty good job of covering all of the pit falls with addressing the problem. I think it is a start, but that is all.
Really, the issue is this, fossil fuels are cheap, but are poisoning the environment for everyone. So, what do we do about it? If we don't address the problem, everyone, even the billionaires making obscene profits, are stuck with a poisoned environment. If we do address it we make energy more expensive for everyone. Those billionaires can afford higher energy bills, but most of us can't. We will have to make choices. And, what about all of the people in the world that can't afford energy at the current rates? What do you do about them at even higher rates? They don't even have the luxury of making choices.
The sad truth is that we are all in this together - every single one of us from the very desperately poor to the most incredibly rich. Climate change reduces the quality of life for all of us, even those that deny it is happening. None of us gets to sit in the stands and say they aren't playing.
So, what do we do? I am looking for new, different ideas. The old, tired ones aren't working. Can you come up with something new?
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Obama's New Coal Regulations
I've been holding off commenting on the new coal regulations announced by the EPA this past Monday. The reason is because the regulation has nothing to do with the reality of global warming. The science remains the same with, or without the proposed regulations.
However, I also like to discuss actions we can take to address the problems we are facing and the emission of greenhouse gases is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. So, the question is, does the new proposed regulations address the problem? I have been reviewing what is being said and, to no surprise, both sides of the argument are making extreme predictions, neither of which seems to be holding up to the light of day.
First, I really see no evidence this will make a significant change in our greenhouse emissions. Headlines are saying it will reduce our emissions by 30%, but that isn't true. What it will do is cut emissions from new construction power plants by 30% compared to the 2005 levels. Power plants have already reduced emissions by about 13% compared to 2005 levels, so we are talking about an additional 17% reduction. These regulations apply only to new power plants and not to any existing power plants or other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as cars. In the total picture, that comes out to about a 6% cut. And, that is over a 15-year period. Notice that the 17% reduction occurred without any new EPA regulations. They occurred because of market forces, so it is reasonable to assume that further reductions would occur without these new regulations.
Also, it isn't even necessary to actually make the cuts. States can make their own plans and combine the power plants with something else. So, if some industry is making reductions anyway it is possible to combine them with the power plants and the power plants can then go their merry way. To make it even worse, states are allowed to join together in one big plan. So, the reduction could be taking place in one state and the coal-fired plant could be in another.
Based on that, I have to say this is getting a lot more attention than it deserves.
But, what about the draconian predictions of the groups opposed to the proposed regulations?
Again, I just don't see it. They are saying this will make electricity more expensive and cause a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The US Chamber of Commerce is predicting a loss of 224,000 jobs PER YEAR for the next 15 years. That comes out to 3,360,000 total jobs and that number is just not credible on the surface. I would want to see some serious estimates before I accept a figure like that.
Why am I so critical of that estimate? Simple. The demand for electricity is sky-rocketing in this country. If we are not building coal-fired plants, we will build something else. The electrical utilities will find a way to supply the electricity demanded because that is what they are in business to do. Supplying electricity means profit. They are not going to sit back and allow potential profits to go away without doing something about it.
And, as it turns out, we are developing better ways to generate electricity than burning coal. Natural gas is not great, but it is much better than coal and we have a very serious boom in natural gas production going on in this country. We have the ability to replace all of the coal-fired plants with natural gas alone.
But, that isn't all. It now turns out that photo cells are becoming competitive with other forms of power production. A report by Barclays investment bank shows that photocells are already cost-competitive in Hawaii, and will be competitive in California by 2017 and New York and Arizona by 2018. By 2024, they say photocells will be cheaper than grid power in all but a handful of states.
Specifically, the report is looking at the issue of cells and storage on private homes - people going off the grid. But, if photocells are becoming that competitive, how long will it be before the utilities realize they can make efficient, competitive power plants using photocells?
In other words, we will be making electricity and I don't see the cost sky rocketing. As for the jobs, there will likely be some job displacement, but losses will probably be minor if in fact, we don't see an increase in jobs due to new technologies. Coal miners might see their jobs suffer, but I'm betting it won't be as much as is claimed. Coal is something of a miracle power source, other than the fact that it is a terrible polluter. You just dig it out of the ground and use it. You don't have to process it and it even comes in an easy to transport form. If we are not burning coal here in this country, there are world markets where it will still be cost effective to ship our coal. China alone is planning on opening a new power plant every week between now and 2050.
So, the way I view the regulation is that its pretty close to being much ado about nothing. The cost to the economy is not going to be anything like the dire forecasts being made. At the same time, the benefits to the environment are not going to be anything like the optimistic forecasts being made.
However, we must do something about the emissions. If this will help, then we should do it. And, it gives us the moral high ground to put pressure on other countries to take action on their emissions.
But, there is one dark side to this that needs to be addressed. As much as I, as a scientist, want to see politics stay out of a scientific issue, we all know that is not realistic. Politics is the driving force behind much of the debate. I really don't believe the Republicans would deny global warming evidence so strongly if it was being proposed by a Republican. And, what Obama has done with his actions is to stir the pot and alienate Republicans even more. By his failure as President to work with the representatives of the People, including members of his own party, he is making future progress even harder to attain. By acting as an Imperial President, Obama is making it increasingly difficult to convince skeptics that this is a problem that needs to be addressed now.
In summary, I think the regulation is good one, even though it is over-hyped. But, I denounce the way it is being done.
However, I also like to discuss actions we can take to address the problems we are facing and the emission of greenhouse gases is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. So, the question is, does the new proposed regulations address the problem? I have been reviewing what is being said and, to no surprise, both sides of the argument are making extreme predictions, neither of which seems to be holding up to the light of day.
First, I really see no evidence this will make a significant change in our greenhouse emissions. Headlines are saying it will reduce our emissions by 30%, but that isn't true. What it will do is cut emissions from new construction power plants by 30% compared to the 2005 levels. Power plants have already reduced emissions by about 13% compared to 2005 levels, so we are talking about an additional 17% reduction. These regulations apply only to new power plants and not to any existing power plants or other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as cars. In the total picture, that comes out to about a 6% cut. And, that is over a 15-year period. Notice that the 17% reduction occurred without any new EPA regulations. They occurred because of market forces, so it is reasonable to assume that further reductions would occur without these new regulations.
Also, it isn't even necessary to actually make the cuts. States can make their own plans and combine the power plants with something else. So, if some industry is making reductions anyway it is possible to combine them with the power plants and the power plants can then go their merry way. To make it even worse, states are allowed to join together in one big plan. So, the reduction could be taking place in one state and the coal-fired plant could be in another.
Based on that, I have to say this is getting a lot more attention than it deserves.
But, what about the draconian predictions of the groups opposed to the proposed regulations?
Again, I just don't see it. They are saying this will make electricity more expensive and cause a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The US Chamber of Commerce is predicting a loss of 224,000 jobs PER YEAR for the next 15 years. That comes out to 3,360,000 total jobs and that number is just not credible on the surface. I would want to see some serious estimates before I accept a figure like that.
Why am I so critical of that estimate? Simple. The demand for electricity is sky-rocketing in this country. If we are not building coal-fired plants, we will build something else. The electrical utilities will find a way to supply the electricity demanded because that is what they are in business to do. Supplying electricity means profit. They are not going to sit back and allow potential profits to go away without doing something about it.
And, as it turns out, we are developing better ways to generate electricity than burning coal. Natural gas is not great, but it is much better than coal and we have a very serious boom in natural gas production going on in this country. We have the ability to replace all of the coal-fired plants with natural gas alone.
But, that isn't all. It now turns out that photo cells are becoming competitive with other forms of power production. A report by Barclays investment bank shows that photocells are already cost-competitive in Hawaii, and will be competitive in California by 2017 and New York and Arizona by 2018. By 2024, they say photocells will be cheaper than grid power in all but a handful of states.
Specifically, the report is looking at the issue of cells and storage on private homes - people going off the grid. But, if photocells are becoming that competitive, how long will it be before the utilities realize they can make efficient, competitive power plants using photocells?
In other words, we will be making electricity and I don't see the cost sky rocketing. As for the jobs, there will likely be some job displacement, but losses will probably be minor if in fact, we don't see an increase in jobs due to new technologies. Coal miners might see their jobs suffer, but I'm betting it won't be as much as is claimed. Coal is something of a miracle power source, other than the fact that it is a terrible polluter. You just dig it out of the ground and use it. You don't have to process it and it even comes in an easy to transport form. If we are not burning coal here in this country, there are world markets where it will still be cost effective to ship our coal. China alone is planning on opening a new power plant every week between now and 2050.
So, the way I view the regulation is that its pretty close to being much ado about nothing. The cost to the economy is not going to be anything like the dire forecasts being made. At the same time, the benefits to the environment are not going to be anything like the optimistic forecasts being made.
However, we must do something about the emissions. If this will help, then we should do it. And, it gives us the moral high ground to put pressure on other countries to take action on their emissions.
But, there is one dark side to this that needs to be addressed. As much as I, as a scientist, want to see politics stay out of a scientific issue, we all know that is not realistic. Politics is the driving force behind much of the debate. I really don't believe the Republicans would deny global warming evidence so strongly if it was being proposed by a Republican. And, what Obama has done with his actions is to stir the pot and alienate Republicans even more. By his failure as President to work with the representatives of the People, including members of his own party, he is making future progress even harder to attain. By acting as an Imperial President, Obama is making it increasingly difficult to convince skeptics that this is a problem that needs to be addressed now.
In summary, I think the regulation is good one, even though it is over-hyped. But, I denounce the way it is being done.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Can We Trust Climate Scientists?
One of the claims deniers are now making is that we can't trust the climate scientist that are involved with global warming research. Their line of reasoning is that their grants and positions depend on finding evidence of global warming and they risk losing either, or both, if they ever find anything else. This, of course, is so ridiculous as to be funny, except there are people that believe this. So, let's examine this and see if there is any truth to the claim.
The basis, and motivation, for the claim comes from the fact that deniers are paid by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate research. The funding is dependent on finding the results the fossil fuel industry wants. In other words, it is directed funding. This funding source greatly damages the credibility of the deniers, much to their chagrin. They can't get funding from any other source and are stuck with it. So, they respond by trying to paint authentic climate researchers with the same brush. If they are getting funding to find evidence of global warming, then we can't trust them, either. The irony of this argument is that they are themselves saying they can't be trusted. By making the claim that directed funding discredits you, they are admitting their own directed funding must discredit them. But, this posting is about the credibility of climate scientists, not the lack of credibility of the deniers.
The claim of the deniers depends on one thing - are the climate scientists being directed in their research? Do they receive funding to find evidence of global warming? Or, are they simply receiving funding to do research and let the chips fall where they may? If this claim they are being directed is not true then we should be able to find research results that do not support climate change. This is actually pretty easy to do. Climate and weather are very complicated and not everything is going to lead to global warming.
A recent announcement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) illustrates this. A researcher at the University of Michigan studied the effects of pollen on the climate and found something interesting. It had been thought pollen had little effect because it was such a large particle it would settle out. But, Dr. Allison Steiner and her team found that pollen particles actually break apart and become many small particles. These small particles lift water vapor up into the atmosphere where they assist in cloud formation. It this way, pollen actually works against global warming by providing a cooling effect.
By the way, Dr. Steiner gets her funding from the NSF. So much for being paid to find only proof of global warming.
Another example is some work done by scientists at Princeton University, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and the Australian University. They studied the way droughts are measured and they state there is an issue with the way droughts are measured. One of the beliefs about global warming is that the amount and severity of droughts worldwide will increase as the climate warms. The most common measure of drought, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), has shown that this is actually happening. However, this team of scientists studied the PDSI and their conclusion (released in November 2012) is that this measure is in error because it was dependent on climatic conditions off the past. When they adjusted the measure to account for climatic changes due to global warming they found little change in the amount of drought over the last 60 years.
Again, credible scientists at reputable institutions finding results that do not support global warming.
This is the way science works. Researchers do the work and discover what the science says. If the science does not support what they believe, then they will change what they believe. The science is irrefutable.
The deniers fail in this manner. When the science does not support what they want to sell the public, they simply discard it and find a new false argument to try and persuade people to believe in what they want them to believe.
The claim that climate scientists are getting paid to prove global warming doesn't pass the credibility test. Climate scientists are paid to do climate research. There will be a climate with, or without, global warming. Their jobs do not depend on global warming and anyone thinking about this for even a few seconds will see that is true. If nothing else, we need a much more robust understanding of climate science for weather forecasting. That, by itself, is enough to justify all of the climate research being done and that would be true even if there were no such thing as global warming. The issue of global warming simply makes it that much more important.
Scientists are not motivated to find a specified result. They are motivated to find the correct result and to find it first. Honors go to the first, not the second. They do not give the Nobel Prize to runners-up. But, at the same time, by the scientific method, any scientific finding must be repeatable by anyone else. Scientists are not magicians and do not have special powers. They have special training and experience, but anyone with similar training and experience must be able to replicate their results. If only one person can do it, it isn't valid. If some scientist was to announce some kind of result and it couldn't be validated by other scientists the damage to that person's career can be devastating. Consider what happened to Pons and Fleishmann after their cold fusion announcement.
Finally, consider this. Much of the research on climate change was done during the administration of George W. Bush between 2001 and 2009. The Bush administration was openly hostile to climate change research and worked to suppress it. The irony is that, contrary to claims by the deniers, climate scientist were actually risking their careers by finding evidence of global warming, not the other way around.
What can we conclude? Can we trust climate scientists? The answer is that we can trust climate scientists to do valid scientific research in climate change and the science they produce is not directed by the funding source.
If only the deniers could make the same claim.
The basis, and motivation, for the claim comes from the fact that deniers are paid by the fossil fuel industry to discredit climate research. The funding is dependent on finding the results the fossil fuel industry wants. In other words, it is directed funding. This funding source greatly damages the credibility of the deniers, much to their chagrin. They can't get funding from any other source and are stuck with it. So, they respond by trying to paint authentic climate researchers with the same brush. If they are getting funding to find evidence of global warming, then we can't trust them, either. The irony of this argument is that they are themselves saying they can't be trusted. By making the claim that directed funding discredits you, they are admitting their own directed funding must discredit them. But, this posting is about the credibility of climate scientists, not the lack of credibility of the deniers.
The claim of the deniers depends on one thing - are the climate scientists being directed in their research? Do they receive funding to find evidence of global warming? Or, are they simply receiving funding to do research and let the chips fall where they may? If this claim they are being directed is not true then we should be able to find research results that do not support climate change. This is actually pretty easy to do. Climate and weather are very complicated and not everything is going to lead to global warming.
A recent announcement from the National Science Foundation (NSF) illustrates this. A researcher at the University of Michigan studied the effects of pollen on the climate and found something interesting. It had been thought pollen had little effect because it was such a large particle it would settle out. But, Dr. Allison Steiner and her team found that pollen particles actually break apart and become many small particles. These small particles lift water vapor up into the atmosphere where they assist in cloud formation. It this way, pollen actually works against global warming by providing a cooling effect.
By the way, Dr. Steiner gets her funding from the NSF. So much for being paid to find only proof of global warming.
Another example is some work done by scientists at Princeton University, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and the Australian University. They studied the way droughts are measured and they state there is an issue with the way droughts are measured. One of the beliefs about global warming is that the amount and severity of droughts worldwide will increase as the climate warms. The most common measure of drought, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), has shown that this is actually happening. However, this team of scientists studied the PDSI and their conclusion (released in November 2012) is that this measure is in error because it was dependent on climatic conditions off the past. When they adjusted the measure to account for climatic changes due to global warming they found little change in the amount of drought over the last 60 years.
Again, credible scientists at reputable institutions finding results that do not support global warming.
This is the way science works. Researchers do the work and discover what the science says. If the science does not support what they believe, then they will change what they believe. The science is irrefutable.
The deniers fail in this manner. When the science does not support what they want to sell the public, they simply discard it and find a new false argument to try and persuade people to believe in what they want them to believe.
The claim that climate scientists are getting paid to prove global warming doesn't pass the credibility test. Climate scientists are paid to do climate research. There will be a climate with, or without, global warming. Their jobs do not depend on global warming and anyone thinking about this for even a few seconds will see that is true. If nothing else, we need a much more robust understanding of climate science for weather forecasting. That, by itself, is enough to justify all of the climate research being done and that would be true even if there were no such thing as global warming. The issue of global warming simply makes it that much more important.
Scientists are not motivated to find a specified result. They are motivated to find the correct result and to find it first. Honors go to the first, not the second. They do not give the Nobel Prize to runners-up. But, at the same time, by the scientific method, any scientific finding must be repeatable by anyone else. Scientists are not magicians and do not have special powers. They have special training and experience, but anyone with similar training and experience must be able to replicate their results. If only one person can do it, it isn't valid. If some scientist was to announce some kind of result and it couldn't be validated by other scientists the damage to that person's career can be devastating. Consider what happened to Pons and Fleishmann after their cold fusion announcement.
Finally, consider this. Much of the research on climate change was done during the administration of George W. Bush between 2001 and 2009. The Bush administration was openly hostile to climate change research and worked to suppress it. The irony is that, contrary to claims by the deniers, climate scientist were actually risking their careers by finding evidence of global warming, not the other way around.
What can we conclude? Can we trust climate scientists? The answer is that we can trust climate scientists to do valid scientific research in climate change and the science they produce is not directed by the funding source.
If only the deniers could make the same claim.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
What about that expanded harvest?
So, to recap, deniers first said there was no global warming. Then, they said any warming was so small that we didn't need to worry about it. Then, they said it was all just a natural cycle. Now, they are saying it is actually good for us. Do you see a trend here?
One of the things they are now claiming is that global warming will increase the zone where we can grow crops and increase the length of the growing season. In this way, it is actually good for us. So, how is this turning out?
I have always been very skeptical of this claim, mainly because I grew up in agricultural areas and have always followed agriculture. I do some work in the local vineyards with some friends in this area. Growing a crop is about a lot more than planting seeds and then kicking back until harvest time. You have to worry about weeds, disease, insects, watering and weather - just to name a few things.
Droughts and heat waves have a devastating effect on crops. Just take a look at what is happening to the farms in California right now. They are having to plow their crops under because they don't have enough water. On the other hand, too much water can be just as bad. A flooding rain can wash a whole farm out in a matter of a few hours. The evidence shows that overall, droughts and floods have been about the same so far, but dry areas are getting drier and wet areas are getting wetter. So, areas with droughts are getting worse and areas with floods are also getting worse.
Another weather event that farmers fear is the hail storm. A severe hail storm can pound a crop into the dirt in just minutes.
Of course, the obvious point is it doesn't matter how long the growing season is if you don't have a crop.
And, a warmer climate will also result in better conditions for insects and diseases that destroy crops.
None of this takes into account the fact that grain crops such as corn and wheat are very sensitive to heat. The yield goes down once the temperature gets higher than a certain point.
I had all of this in mind when I read an article in the May 13 issue of Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Climate change, water rights, and agriculture: A case study in Idaho reports on an investigation into the effects of climate change on agriculture. Their findings?
This is just one study for one particular region, but the point is pretty clear. Just because more land is available for growing crops and the length of the growing season is longer, it doesn't mean there will be a larger harvest. Climate change will make certain things better for crops, but it will also make a lot of things worse at the same time.
Again, we see that all of us at the bottom will have to foot the bill for all of this. This time, in the form of higher food prices.
One of the things they are now claiming is that global warming will increase the zone where we can grow crops and increase the length of the growing season. In this way, it is actually good for us. So, how is this turning out?
I have always been very skeptical of this claim, mainly because I grew up in agricultural areas and have always followed agriculture. I do some work in the local vineyards with some friends in this area. Growing a crop is about a lot more than planting seeds and then kicking back until harvest time. You have to worry about weeds, disease, insects, watering and weather - just to name a few things.
Droughts and heat waves have a devastating effect on crops. Just take a look at what is happening to the farms in California right now. They are having to plow their crops under because they don't have enough water. On the other hand, too much water can be just as bad. A flooding rain can wash a whole farm out in a matter of a few hours. The evidence shows that overall, droughts and floods have been about the same so far, but dry areas are getting drier and wet areas are getting wetter. So, areas with droughts are getting worse and areas with floods are also getting worse.
Another weather event that farmers fear is the hail storm. A severe hail storm can pound a crop into the dirt in just minutes.
Of course, the obvious point is it doesn't matter how long the growing season is if you don't have a crop.
And, a warmer climate will also result in better conditions for insects and diseases that destroy crops.
None of this takes into account the fact that grain crops such as corn and wheat are very sensitive to heat. The yield goes down once the temperature gets higher than a certain point.
I had all of this in mind when I read an article in the May 13 issue of Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Climate change, water rights, and agriculture: A case study in Idaho reports on an investigation into the effects of climate change on agriculture. Their findings?
"They found that if climate change increases the volatility of the temperature and the water supply, irrigated agriculture in the region could face significant damages. In fact, crop revenue losses could be up to 32%."
This is just one study for one particular region, but the point is pretty clear. Just because more land is available for growing crops and the length of the growing season is longer, it doesn't mean there will be a larger harvest. Climate change will make certain things better for crops, but it will also make a lot of things worse at the same time.
Again, we see that all of us at the bottom will have to foot the bill for all of this. This time, in the form of higher food prices.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Denier Funding
Climate change deniers like to say that the science behind climate change is not 'settled science' and that there is no consensus among scientists. These, of course, are false statements. The fact is, 97% of all climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is due to manmade emissions. Here is an excellent report on the very subject. The science is very real and scientist who work in this field of study are in overwhelming agreement.
Deniers also reject the claim that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the valid science and to inject doubt into the minds of the public. Below is a list of some of the denier sources and individuals receiving those funds. The challenge to me was to produce documents that could used in the event I received a subpoena in a slander/libel lawsuit. I have indicated my sources of information and they satisfy that requirement. The information provided here has been gleaned from tax documents, SEC filings, statements by the individuals themselves, court papers and articles vetted by major news media (also one of the standards demanded by the denier).
So, I'll say it to be perfectly clear:
Some organizations in the fossil fuel industry are funding climate change deniers for the purpose of undermining climate change science.
If someone would like to sue me for slander/libel, then the documents below would be enough to get the case thrown out of court. Of course, the deniers will claim otherwise, but they live in a fantasy world that does not accept reality.
The denier disinformation campaign is very well funded and very well organized. A study done at Drexel University found 140 foundations provided $558 million to nearly 100 climate change organizations between 2003 and 2010. That comes out to an average of almost $70 million per year. That is some serious money and you don't provide that kind of funding just to have a tax-write off. This funding is done for a purpose. What I find very telling is the fact that traceable donations have disappeared and been replaced with untraceable donations to third-party proxies. In fact, one climate change denial proxy, Donors Trust (along with the associated Donors Capital) accounts for fully 25% of all climate change denier funding. Why are they hiding their donations? Are they afraid that people would question their motives?
Many of the organizations providing funding for climate change denial are among the world's worst emitters of greenhouse gases. The original paper on sources of greenhouse gases can be found here. This list represents who stands to lose the most if we do something about the problem. In other words, people making a bunch of money hurting the rest of us are convincing millions of people that we shouldn't do anything about the problem. And, millions of people simply take out their checkbook and agree with them.
Here are some of the funding organizations and funding receivers. This list is not even close to being exhaustive, it is here merely to illustrate the debt of the problem.
Funding Organizations
ChevronTexaco - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
ExxonMobil - Exxon reports show donations to the Heartland Institute between 1998 and 2007 of $676,500. Exxon donated more than $28 million to the American Enterprise Institute (see below). Along with the Marshall Institute and Fred Singer's group, they proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. Exxon was called out by a number of senators for giving over $19 million to fund groups "producing very questionable data" on climate change. Studies have found Exxon to have been "heavily involved" in denier funding between 2003 and 2008 and donated more than $16 million during that time. Exxon has since changed and says it no longer gives to climate denier organizations and there has been no publicly traceable denier funding from Exxon since 2008. There are reports it continued to provide denier funding through at least 2011. However, there are still proxies that Exxon donates to, so it is not possible to verify it has stopped all funding.
Source: Greenpeace USA, Newsweek, Scientific American, The Guardian , Huffington Post
BP - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
Shell - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
Koch Brothers - The Koch brothers and their interrelated corporations and foundations have been responsible for millions of dollars in donations to denial organizations, including the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation. They have also had to pay tens of millions of dollars in fines and hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs as a result of violating environmental safety guards. They have been very critical of environmental safety laws, both on the books and proposed. Between 2005 and 2011 the Kochs would provide over $43 million to denier organizations, more than three times what Exxon provided during the same time period. The Kochs have become the largest single source of funds for denier organizations. They provide funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Huffington Post, Think Progress
Peabody Energy -Peabody is the world's largest private-sector supplier of coal and sold more than 246 million tons of coal in 2010. Peabody supports American Legislative Exchange Council and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, both very active climate change denial organizations.
Source: Polluter Watch, SourceWatch
Chrysler - Chrysler donated $105,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2006.
Source: Huffington Post
General Motors - GM donated $165,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2010. They donated $95,000 to the Cato Institute between 2003 and 2009.
Source: Huffington Post
Western Fuels Association - Supports the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a major climate change denier organization.
Source: The Nation
And, take a look at who is getting the funding. The people and institutes here are among the most notorious of the climate change deniers or proxies.
Funding Receivers
Donors Trust - According to IRS tax returns, between 2002 and 2010, Donors Trust provided over $90 million in funding ($90,989,710 to be exact) to 84 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. Between 2004 and 2010, the partner group Donors Capital Fund, provided more than $28 million in funding ($28,490,862) to 75 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. They receive their funds from conservative sources, including the Koch Brothers, Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Charles Koch donated $2 million in 2010 alone.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Mother Jones, Huffington Post,
The Heartland Institute - Possibly the organization most guilty of false-science and efforts to undermine valid climate science. The Heartland Institute once compared climate scientists to terrorists, including the Unabomber, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro. They stated, “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Heartland's president, Joseph Bast, has called Heartland "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming." Several internal documents were obtained by Peter Gleick and posted online. These documents revealed they were receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry and were engaged in campaigns to undermine climate science with school-based programs. Heartland demanded Gleick be charged and threatened lawsuits against anyone reposting the documents or even discussing them (I guess I'm in trouble). They are one of the organizations involved in the intimidation campaign against climate researcher Michael Mann. Heartland was involved in the ClimateGate campaign where the computer servers at East Anglia were illegally hacked and selected emails were stolen. These emails were then cherry-picked to take quotes out of context in an effort to make it look as if the scientists were faking their research. The scientists were all cleared of any wrong-doing by several independent panels, but Heartland continues to cite the emails in a continuing effort to discredit the scientists. They have engaged in other campaigns to attack, intimidate and discredit climate scientists (when you can't refute the science, destroy the scientists). they host an annual conference of climate change contrarians. Heartland has also been involved with efforts to convince people there is no danger in second-hand smoke. In addition to their internal documents showing they receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, Exxon documents show they donated $676,500 to Heartland since 1998. See the above entry about Donors Trust, which has donated money to Heartland.
According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2008), Chrysler Foundation ($105,000, 2004-06), Donors Capital Fund ($25.6 million, 2005-11), Donors Trust ($554,000, 2008-10), ExxonMobil ($531,500, 2001-06), General Motors Foundation ($165,000, 2004-10) and Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($25,000, 2011).
Source: Washington Post, The Heartland Institute, Forbes, The Guardian, Forbes again, Watching the Deniers, More Forbes , ExxonSecrets, Huffington Post, More Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists
The American Petroleum Institute (API) - The API has long held the position that any effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions is a 'tax on our industry' and has fought behind the scenes to undermine any effort to enact legislation that might hurt the fossil fuel industry. Internal memos have shown that it funds and provides staffing for campaigns against legislation, then denies any involvement. API says that it does not consider climate change legislation to be an energy tax, but then runs numerous ads calling any such legislation an 'energy tax.' Along with other groups, API funded reports for Congress "whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming." Among other contributors, AEI received more than $1.9 million from Exxon.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Newsweek
Source: Newsweek, Wikipedia, SourceWatch, The Guardian, Union of Concerned Scientists
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - ALEC is an extremist organization that, among other things, promotes climate change denial and is funded by the oil and gas industry. It is extremely weird - and dangerous. Read the first-hand account from Chris Taylor, a state representative from Wisconsin. ALEC denies that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat or sea level to rise. Not only does ALEC deny the threat of climate change, they even argue that “substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States”.
Source: The Progressive, Climate Progress
Richard Lindzen - He always claimed to not take any funding from the fossil fuel industry, but finally admitted to taking over $10,000 per year from the fossil fuel industry plus consulting fees and travel expenses. He receives $2,500 per day in consulting fees. He was a court expert witness for the Western Fuels Association.
Source: DeSmogBlog, SourceWatch, Weather Underground
Patrick Michaels - Michaels served as an expert court witness on behalf of the Western Fuels Association. This, and other actions, led the Minnesota Star to write about him in an editorial stating he was a fossil-fuel industry funded scientist. He won a court case against them, but then he admitted in 1995 that he had received over $165,000 from the fossil fuel industry. He now refuses to reveal any of his source of funds. ABC reported he had received $100,000 from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. He also acknowledged on CNN that 40 percent of his funding comes from the oil industry. He was a witness in a lawsuit but withdrew when it became apparent he would have to reveal his funding sources. He was paid by the coal industry to write the World Climate Report, in which he regularly attempted to discredit climate science.
Source: ThinkProgress, Wikipedia, Mother Jones, DeSmogBlog, Newsweek, Huffington Post
The Cato Institute: A long-time climate denial organization, Patrick Michaels (see above) heads their Center for the Study of Science. He admitted that he receives 40% of his funding from the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute received $110,000 from ExxonMobil between 2001and 2006, $95,000 from General Motors from 2003 to 2009, and $2.79 million from the three main Koch family funds from 2001 to 2010.
Source: Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists
Competitive Enterprise Institute - According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2009), Donors Capital Fund ($607,280, 2007-11), Donors Trust ($581,000, 2002-11), ExxonMobil ($1.69 million, 2001-05), General Motors Foundation ($245,000, 2003-08), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($24,100, 2009) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($222,620, 2002-11).
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
James Inhofe - The senior senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe is a die-hard critic of climate change science. He has called global warming the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." At the same time, the senator is one of the largest receivers of fossil fuel industry campaign funds. Over his career, he has received over $3,250,000 from the energy sector, including $1,600,000 from the oil and gas industry. That total included over $95,000 from the Koch Brothers. He famously used outdated data, even though it had been proven false, to make the claim that there was no scientific evidence of global warming.
Source: OpenSecrets, The Guardian, Newsweek
Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) - The NIPCC is a project funded by the Heartland Institute with the objective of presenting alternative science. The NIPCC differs from the UN's IPCC in several important ways, including (thanks to Skeptical Science):
Source: Greenpeace, Skeptical Science
S. Fred Singer - A long time climate change denier, Singer has been very active as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. He makes frequent appearances before government panels at the state and federal level with testimony contrary to the prevailing science. Singer is famous for claiming global warming was not real, then, when he was caught in the lie, changed his claim to saying that climate science community was a cabal that was silencing any scientist that disagreed with the 'alarmist' reports. Singer receives $5000 per month plus expenses from the Heartland Institute.
Source: Newsweek, The Heartland Institute
Craig Idso -Idso heads the denial organization known as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He is also associated with the Heartland Institute, which pays him $11,600 per month.
Source: The Heartland Institute, More Heartland Institute
Source: Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists
Deniers also reject the claim that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the valid science and to inject doubt into the minds of the public. Below is a list of some of the denier sources and individuals receiving those funds. The challenge to me was to produce documents that could used in the event I received a subpoena in a slander/libel lawsuit. I have indicated my sources of information and they satisfy that requirement. The information provided here has been gleaned from tax documents, SEC filings, statements by the individuals themselves, court papers and articles vetted by major news media (also one of the standards demanded by the denier).
So, I'll say it to be perfectly clear:
Some organizations in the fossil fuel industry are funding climate change deniers for the purpose of undermining climate change science.
If someone would like to sue me for slander/libel, then the documents below would be enough to get the case thrown out of court. Of course, the deniers will claim otherwise, but they live in a fantasy world that does not accept reality.
The denier disinformation campaign is very well funded and very well organized. A study done at Drexel University found 140 foundations provided $558 million to nearly 100 climate change organizations between 2003 and 2010. That comes out to an average of almost $70 million per year. That is some serious money and you don't provide that kind of funding just to have a tax-write off. This funding is done for a purpose. What I find very telling is the fact that traceable donations have disappeared and been replaced with untraceable donations to third-party proxies. In fact, one climate change denial proxy, Donors Trust (along with the associated Donors Capital) accounts for fully 25% of all climate change denier funding. Why are they hiding their donations? Are they afraid that people would question their motives?
Many of the organizations providing funding for climate change denial are among the world's worst emitters of greenhouse gases. The original paper on sources of greenhouse gases can be found here. This list represents who stands to lose the most if we do something about the problem. In other words, people making a bunch of money hurting the rest of us are convincing millions of people that we shouldn't do anything about the problem. And, millions of people simply take out their checkbook and agree with them.
Here are some of the funding organizations and funding receivers. This list is not even close to being exhaustive, it is here merely to illustrate the debt of the problem.
Funding Organizations
ChevronTexaco - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
ExxonMobil - Exxon reports show donations to the Heartland Institute between 1998 and 2007 of $676,500. Exxon donated more than $28 million to the American Enterprise Institute (see below). Along with the Marshall Institute and Fred Singer's group, they proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. Exxon was called out by a number of senators for giving over $19 million to fund groups "producing very questionable data" on climate change. Studies have found Exxon to have been "heavily involved" in denier funding between 2003 and 2008 and donated more than $16 million during that time. Exxon has since changed and says it no longer gives to climate denier organizations and there has been no publicly traceable denier funding from Exxon since 2008. There are reports it continued to provide denier funding through at least 2011. However, there are still proxies that Exxon donates to, so it is not possible to verify it has stopped all funding.
Source: Greenpeace USA, Newsweek, Scientific American, The Guardian , Huffington Post
BP - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
Shell - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
Koch Brothers - The Koch brothers and their interrelated corporations and foundations have been responsible for millions of dollars in donations to denial organizations, including the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation. They have also had to pay tens of millions of dollars in fines and hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs as a result of violating environmental safety guards. They have been very critical of environmental safety laws, both on the books and proposed. Between 2005 and 2011 the Kochs would provide over $43 million to denier organizations, more than three times what Exxon provided during the same time period. The Kochs have become the largest single source of funds for denier organizations. They provide funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Huffington Post, Think Progress
Peabody Energy -Peabody is the world's largest private-sector supplier of coal and sold more than 246 million tons of coal in 2010. Peabody supports American Legislative Exchange Council and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, both very active climate change denial organizations.
Source: Polluter Watch, SourceWatch
Chrysler - Chrysler donated $105,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2006.
Source: Huffington Post
General Motors - GM donated $165,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2010. They donated $95,000 to the Cato Institute between 2003 and 2009.
Source: Huffington Post
Western Fuels Association - Supports the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a major climate change denier organization.
Source: The Nation
And, take a look at who is getting the funding. The people and institutes here are among the most notorious of the climate change deniers or proxies.
Funding Receivers
Donors Trust - According to IRS tax returns, between 2002 and 2010, Donors Trust provided over $90 million in funding ($90,989,710 to be exact) to 84 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. Between 2004 and 2010, the partner group Donors Capital Fund, provided more than $28 million in funding ($28,490,862) to 75 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. They receive their funds from conservative sources, including the Koch Brothers, Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Charles Koch donated $2 million in 2010 alone.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Mother Jones, Huffington Post,
The Heartland Institute - Possibly the organization most guilty of false-science and efforts to undermine valid climate science. The Heartland Institute once compared climate scientists to terrorists, including the Unabomber, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro. They stated, “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Heartland's president, Joseph Bast, has called Heartland "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming." Several internal documents were obtained by Peter Gleick and posted online. These documents revealed they were receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry and were engaged in campaigns to undermine climate science with school-based programs. Heartland demanded Gleick be charged and threatened lawsuits against anyone reposting the documents or even discussing them (I guess I'm in trouble). They are one of the organizations involved in the intimidation campaign against climate researcher Michael Mann. Heartland was involved in the ClimateGate campaign where the computer servers at East Anglia were illegally hacked and selected emails were stolen. These emails were then cherry-picked to take quotes out of context in an effort to make it look as if the scientists were faking their research. The scientists were all cleared of any wrong-doing by several independent panels, but Heartland continues to cite the emails in a continuing effort to discredit the scientists. They have engaged in other campaigns to attack, intimidate and discredit climate scientists (when you can't refute the science, destroy the scientists). they host an annual conference of climate change contrarians. Heartland has also been involved with efforts to convince people there is no danger in second-hand smoke. In addition to their internal documents showing they receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, Exxon documents show they donated $676,500 to Heartland since 1998. See the above entry about Donors Trust, which has donated money to Heartland.
According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2008), Chrysler Foundation ($105,000, 2004-06), Donors Capital Fund ($25.6 million, 2005-11), Donors Trust ($554,000, 2008-10), ExxonMobil ($531,500, 2001-06), General Motors Foundation ($165,000, 2004-10) and Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($25,000, 2011).
Source: Washington Post, The Heartland Institute, Forbes, The Guardian, Forbes again, Watching the Deniers, More Forbes , ExxonSecrets, Huffington Post, More Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists
The American Petroleum Institute (API) - The API has long held the position that any effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions is a 'tax on our industry' and has fought behind the scenes to undermine any effort to enact legislation that might hurt the fossil fuel industry. Internal memos have shown that it funds and provides staffing for campaigns against legislation, then denies any involvement. API says that it does not consider climate change legislation to be an energy tax, but then runs numerous ads calling any such legislation an 'energy tax.' Along with other groups, API funded reports for Congress "whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming." Among other contributors, AEI received more than $1.9 million from Exxon.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Newsweek
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) - Among other things, it offered $10,000 cash plus travel expenses for any scientist that would write papers undermining climate change research. It has been reported that AEI received over $28 million from ExxonMobil over a 10 year period, although that funding level has dropped significantly in recent years. Besides Exxon, AEI has received $60,000 from the American Petroleum Institute $1.1 million from the three main Koch family foundations
between 2001 and 2011. AEI denies it rejects climate change science, even though they have been active in the business. Among other things they have been involved with, they helped underwrite a $53,000 project for a denier's presentation to Congress claiming there was no warming over the last 1000 years. Therefore, it was claimed, there was no scientific consensus. According to various data bases and their tax
documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($145,000,
2008-11), Donors Capital Fund ($15.16 million, 2002 -11), Donors Trust ($187,000,
2002-11), ExxonMobil ($3.04 million, 2001-11), Charles G. Koch Charitable
Foundation ($350,000, 2004-11) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
($750,000, 2005-07).
Source: Newsweek, Wikipedia, SourceWatch, The Guardian, Union of Concerned Scientists
Americans For Prosperity -According to various data
bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American
Petroleum Institute ($124,000, 2008-11), Donors Capital Fund ($1.32million,
2005-11), Donors Trust ($6.33million, 2005-11), Charles G. Koch Charitable
Foundation, $67,500, 2009), David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1 million,
2008) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($4.69 million,
2005-10).
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - ALEC is an extremist organization that, among other things, promotes climate change denial and is funded by the oil and gas industry. It is extremely weird - and dangerous. Read the first-hand account from Chris Taylor, a state representative from Wisconsin. ALEC denies that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat or sea level to rise. Not only does ALEC deny the threat of climate change, they even argue that “substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States”.
Source: The Progressive, Climate Progress
Richard Lindzen - He always claimed to not take any funding from the fossil fuel industry, but finally admitted to taking over $10,000 per year from the fossil fuel industry plus consulting fees and travel expenses. He receives $2,500 per day in consulting fees. He was a court expert witness for the Western Fuels Association.
Source: DeSmogBlog, SourceWatch, Weather Underground
Patrick Michaels - Michaels served as an expert court witness on behalf of the Western Fuels Association. This, and other actions, led the Minnesota Star to write about him in an editorial stating he was a fossil-fuel industry funded scientist. He won a court case against them, but then he admitted in 1995 that he had received over $165,000 from the fossil fuel industry. He now refuses to reveal any of his source of funds. ABC reported he had received $100,000 from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. He also acknowledged on CNN that 40 percent of his funding comes from the oil industry. He was a witness in a lawsuit but withdrew when it became apparent he would have to reveal his funding sources. He was paid by the coal industry to write the World Climate Report, in which he regularly attempted to discredit climate science.
Source: ThinkProgress, Wikipedia, Mother Jones, DeSmogBlog, Newsweek, Huffington Post
The Cato Institute: A long-time climate denial organization, Patrick Michaels (see above) heads their Center for the Study of Science. He admitted that he receives 40% of his funding from the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute received $110,000 from ExxonMobil between 2001and 2006, $95,000 from General Motors from 2003 to 2009, and $2.79 million from the three main Koch family funds from 2001 to 2010.
According to various data
bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: Donors Capital
Fund ($1.08 million, 2002-11), DonorsTrust ($348,670, 2002-11), ExxonMobil ($110,000,
2001-06), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($18,400, 2006-08), David H.
Koch Charitable Foundation ($500,000, 2001) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe
Charitable Foundation ($2.27 million, 2001-10).
Source: Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists
Competitive Enterprise Institute - According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2009), Donors Capital Fund ($607,280, 2007-11), Donors Trust ($581,000, 2002-11), ExxonMobil ($1.69 million, 2001-05), General Motors Foundation ($245,000, 2003-08), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($24,100, 2009) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($222,620, 2002-11).
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
James Inhofe - The senior senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe is a die-hard critic of climate change science. He has called global warming the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." At the same time, the senator is one of the largest receivers of fossil fuel industry campaign funds. Over his career, he has received over $3,250,000 from the energy sector, including $1,600,000 from the oil and gas industry. That total included over $95,000 from the Koch Brothers. He famously used outdated data, even though it had been proven false, to make the claim that there was no scientific evidence of global warming.
Source: OpenSecrets, The Guardian, Newsweek
Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) - The NIPCC is a project funded by the Heartland Institute with the objective of presenting alternative science. The NIPCC differs from the UN's IPCC in several important ways, including (thanks to Skeptical Science):
- Its purpose is not to give clarity on climate science, as the IPCC does, but to critique the IPCC, according to the Heartland leaked documents
- The scientists working for the NIPCC get paid; the IPCC scientists don’t
- The NIPCC report only critiques papers published by deniers, whereas the IPCC critiques all papers, including those published by deniers.
Source: Greenpeace, Skeptical Science
S. Fred Singer - A long time climate change denier, Singer has been very active as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. He makes frequent appearances before government panels at the state and federal level with testimony contrary to the prevailing science. Singer is famous for claiming global warming was not real, then, when he was caught in the lie, changed his claim to saying that climate science community was a cabal that was silencing any scientist that disagreed with the 'alarmist' reports. Singer receives $5000 per month plus expenses from the Heartland Institute.
Source: Newsweek, The Heartland Institute
Craig Idso -Idso heads the denial organization known as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He is also associated with the Heartland Institute, which pays him $11,600 per month.
Source: The Heartland Institute, More Heartland Institute
The Heritage Foundation - Heritage has received $535,000 from ExxonMobil
(2001-11), $100,000 from General Motors (2003-07), and $3.69 million
from Charles Koch's Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (2001-10). They have also received funds from Donors Capital Fund ($41,000,
2002-10) and Donors Trust ($307,765, 2002-11).
Source: Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Where are we going with the environment?
Climate change is not the only thing affecting the environment. Some of the other issues we have been forced to address in the past are acid rain, ozone depletion, pesticides and even over-fishing. We humans have managed to make a mess of the environment and its is going to take some real effort to make things better.
Earth Day is one of those things we do to help bring attention to the situation. Earth Day this year falls on April 22 and events are planned worldwide.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has 25 sites in the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network for the purpose of in-depth studying of various ecologies around the world. The ecologies include diverse regions to provide a picture of the planet. Places located within the U.S. include such places as acid rain lakes in the Adirondacks, the Arctic in northern Alaska, the Pacific Ocean off the U.S. West Coast, the desert region around Phoenix, Arizona and river basins in Wisconsin. NSF held an annual mini-symposium on February 21 of this year to discuss where these ecologies are going.
Off course, there is bad news. Things are changing and not many of the changes are for the better. Some of these environments will take hundreds of years to recover from the damage done to them. The good news is that some of them are recovering. We are making a difference in some areas. Acid rain is a good example. We have managed to make some significant improvement here since the 1990s.
This is something we need to focus on when we discuss climate change. The climate is changing due to our actions. But, we can change the way we do business and maybe reverse some of the damage. At least, we can work to slow down the rate of change.
Earth Day is one of those things we do to help bring attention to the situation. Earth Day this year falls on April 22 and events are planned worldwide.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has 25 sites in the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network for the purpose of in-depth studying of various ecologies around the world. The ecologies include diverse regions to provide a picture of the planet. Places located within the U.S. include such places as acid rain lakes in the Adirondacks, the Arctic in northern Alaska, the Pacific Ocean off the U.S. West Coast, the desert region around Phoenix, Arizona and river basins in Wisconsin. NSF held an annual mini-symposium on February 21 of this year to discuss where these ecologies are going.
Off course, there is bad news. Things are changing and not many of the changes are for the better. Some of these environments will take hundreds of years to recover from the damage done to them. The good news is that some of them are recovering. We are making a difference in some areas. Acid rain is a good example. We have managed to make some significant improvement here since the 1990s.
This is something we need to focus on when we discuss climate change. The climate is changing due to our actions. But, we can change the way we do business and maybe reverse some of the damage. At least, we can work to slow down the rate of change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)